Tag Archives: #makeblog

How do you feel when somebody else puts in a few crisp, simple sentences something you have always wanted to say?

On being asked,

“At what point of time, does liberty for yourself becomes license to abuse others?”

This person (can you guess who?) said,

“It’s a loaded question ofcourse because I am not talking about liberty for myself but about liberty also for others to abuse me, which they have freely utilized. I am not trying to say that I am the only one who gets to speak, only that I also get to speak. The question of the limits of freedom – unfortunately, these days, people have begun to fall into the trap of believing that it is right to limit freedom, at that point which you were mentioning the point of where other people don’t like what you are saying, I am telling you, if you go down that road, nobody will be able to speak at all, because everybody can object for whatever reason to somebody else and you silence all speech…that’s the consequence of that mindset, it is better to be in a world where people say what they want and if you don’t like it, you say so in return. That’s how the debate of an open society proceeds. Of course I am not saying I am the only one who gets to talk, obviously I am not saying that…”[Link] – Don’t click before attempting a guess!!!

Can’t guess?

Here’s some more from the same source!!

“Freedom. It’s a beautiful sounding word. We say, who would be against freedom? It’s a word that you would automatically be for, one would think. You think of a free society as one in which a thousand flowers bloom, in which a thousand and one voices speak… what a simple and grand idea… But in our time, many essential freedoms are in danger of defeat and not only in totalitarian or authoritarian states, here in India also a combination of religious fanaticism, political opportunism and I have to to say public apathy, is damaging that freedom upon which all other freedoms depend which is the freedom of expression…”

Now?

Answer and win the Prestigious Yellow Polka Dotted Cup!!!

Not publishing the correct answers yet – please do mention if you agree or disagree with the speaker.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE FACING ANY DIFFICULTY IN COMMENTING BY EMAILING ME AT indianhomemakerATgmailDOTcom.

What is it that you would never blog about? Even though you think you should be able to. Something you feel strongly about and you feel should be discussed and something you are well within your legal rights to discuss, but you self censor and don’t write about it. What stops you? Do you think blogging about it would help you or somebody else? Does not-blogging about it benefit you or anybody else?

Some bloggers seemed to be censored by their immediate families – they may not write against religion, tradition, sexual orientation etc. Does your family read your blog? How much influence does their reading or not reading makes to the way you blog?

Some bloggers are ‘censored’ by the comments that disagree too strongly – this seems to happen mostly if your political ideology supports tolerance and secularism.

Bloggers who write about women’s issues also face criticism and troll attacks, (it is generally assumed they are women).

If you did not self censor what do you think would you like to blog about? What do you think should never be discussed on blogs or at least you would not discuss, even though that’s what you blog about.

Would you criticize something if you are not sure it would help the cause – just to convey your own views on the subject?

The idea was to be able to write confidently about issues close to my heart with more awareness and clarity about a blogger’s legal rights and responsibilities.

As someone who thinks the best thing about India is it’s Democracy [link] – I wanted to be aware of the rules that ensure it functions smoothly; to understand, if and when objective criticism of social norms or religion or a book or a Court verdict could become a legal offense.

What did I learn? (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

Blog owners are responsible for not just the content they publish but also for the links they share and the comments on their blog. As ‘intermediaries’ they are,

1. Disparaging to whom? So, if we are to criticize without breaking any laws, it would have to be without being ‘disparaging’?

Does it mean when we rant against Dinesh Reddy, C C Patil, Muthalik and even Mamta Banerjee and Kapil Sibal, are we breaking a law?

This is confusing because Kapil Sibal clearly said we are not; in his own words, “I think that the media has the right to criticise, the media has the right to be satirical and that’s part of the freedom of expression that we ourselves in government cherish.” [link]

And what did Kapil Sibal mean when he said we could even say we hated him?

2. Obscene includes what? Are discussions/opinions about premarital sex obscene? The Supreme Court has made it clear they are not. “At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law?” [Link]

There should have been clarity, since ‘pornographic’ and ‘paedophilic’ are separately listed.

3. Blasphemous reminded me of Pakistan’s Blasphemy law.

It also seems unconstitutional.

In Jan 2010, Bombay High Court,…brought joy to civil rights activists when it held that, “in our country, everything is open to criticism and religion is no exception. Freedom of expression covers criticism of religion and no person can be sensitive about it.”

…”Healthy criticism provokes thought, encourages debate and helps us evolve. But criticism cannot be malicious and must not lead to creating ill-will between different communities… (it) must lead to sensible dialogue.” [link]

4. It seems these Intermediary Guidelines also make us responsible for the links we share? What if a blog post was edited after we have shared a link to it?

I had expected clarity – well defined rules so that law abiding citizens could feel confident when they blogged for what they cared about – social justice in my case.

What is the government trying to achieve by these guidelines? Has the government forgotten,

“It is not the task of the criminal law to punish individual merely for expressing unpopular views. The threshold for placing reasonable restrictions on the ‘freedom of speech and expression’ is indeed a very high one and there should be a presumption in favour of the accused in such cases. [Click to read more of what the Supreme Court had to say…]

In Feb 2009, 19 year old Ajith D was told by Supreme Court,

“…if someone files a criminal action on the basis of the content, then you will have to face the case. You have to go before the court and explain your conduct.” [Link]

But perhaps we should not lose heart, because MediaVidea explains, “…all the court has done is to say that “let the law take its own course and let the Maharashtra High Court look into the matter.” [Do read!]

He further says, “… I have faith in our Justice system. Bloggers are not going to face a million lawsuits in India.”

That’s true perhaps, and I think Ajith D will win the case – but the problem is, ‘The process is the punishment — just going through arrest, bail or being banned can unsettle anyone’ [link]

Blogging in a democracy should not be like walking on egg shells.

So what is it that we cannot discuss on our blogs?

‘Are Indians not allowed to have any (to put it mildly) uncharitable opinions against Shiv Sena (or any political party, for that matter)?’ and ‘If no, is it a crime to open that opinion to discussion — in print or online?’ [link, Karthik S, Feb 2009]

But there is hope,

The Supreme Court observed in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms:[5] “Onesided information, disinformation, misinformation and non information, all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. Freedom of speech and expression includes right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to hold opinions”[Freedom of Expression in India, Wikipedia]

Reminds me of what I have always believed –

Freedom of expression comes with responsibility. The responsibility to protect it from censorship.